THER PEOPLE'S

ANTHROPOLOGIES

Ethnographic Practice on the Margins

edited by
Aleksandar Boskovi

Berghahn Books
New York Oxford

First editlon publisbed in 2008 by

Berghahn Books

www.berghahnbooks.com

2008 Aleksandar Bo!kovi

Ali rigbts reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of
criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any formar by any
means, electronic or mechanical, induding photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written
permission of the publisher.

Library of Congreos Cataloging-ln-Publication Data

Other people's anthropologies : ethnographic practice on the margins / edited by
Aleksandar Boskovi. - 1st ed.

p. cm.
Papers originally presented at a workshop at the 2004 E.ASA conference in Vienna.
Indudes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-84545-39~ (hardback: alk. paper)
l. Ethnology-Congresses. I. Boskovi, Aleksandar. II. European Association
of Social Anthropologists. Conference (2004 : Vienna, Austria}
GN302.0884 2007
305.B-<Ic22

2007042675

British Llbrary Cataloguing ln Publication Data

A catalogue record for thls book is available from the British Library

Printed in the United States on acid-free paper

ISBN-13: 978-1-84545-398-5 hardback

Chapter 11

Anthropology with No GuiltA View from Brazil*

Mariza G.S. Peirano

INTRODUCTION
A new divide seems to be going on in anlhropology: while in the metropolitan
centers it appears either doomed to extinction ar bent into "studies"

(femi~

nist, cultural, science and technology, etc.), in other locations anthropology

is well and thrlving ar, lf not thrivlng, at least provlding a positive and constructive edge or approach. Renowned scholars in lhe 1960s warned lheir
colleagues that anthropology might become a science without an object because of the physical disappearance of whole populations following contact,
and because of the rejection of anthropology by newly independent nations.
Anthropology's past sins and malpractices would lead former "natives" ta

turn anthropologlsts down. A decolonlzation of the social sciences was in

arder.' Indeed, time has confirmed these expectations, but somelhing not
anticipated happened--due to the guilt associated wilh colonialism, anthropology Is being devalued even by the descendants of those who first crafted
the Ide a of overseas fieldwork, i.e., the anthropologists from the centers.
ln this chapter, I will confront lhis apparent puzzle by examining lhe
Brazilian case ln the context of the larger global picture. I start by looking
at some of the past sins attributed to anthropology, and then turn them
upside down to detect possible values and vlrtues. I propose that, in Brazil,
anthropology's values and virtues are more stimulating than its sins; I also
suggest that exoticism has been acculturated as "difference" {whether social,

186

AnthropoW,zy with Na Guilt-A V1tw frorn llrazil

187

cultural or territorial) and that guilt has not prospered in a context which
has always demanded social scientists' commitment to the objects of their
study. I then examine the plurality of otherness, as found in anthropology ln
Brazll, and conclude the paper with a brief discussion on the implications of
the lahel "national anthropologies."

SINS
The following is a retrospective list of past sins which have come to disturb
today's "international" anthropologists (as per Gerholm & Hannerz 1982):
(i) The first sin tells of power relations. For a long time, anthropology was
defined by the exoticism of its subject matter and by the distance, conceived as both cultural and geographic, that separated lhe researcher
from the researched group. This situation was part and pareei of a colonial context of domination, anthropology being "the outcome of a
historical process which has made the larger part of mankind subservient to the other." This quote from Lvi-Strauss ( 1966: 124) illnstrates
that since the 1960s, there has heen no illusion that the historlcal relationshlp between anthropology and its subject matter was anything but
inequitable and domineering. Yet, this awareness has not kept anthropologists from continuing their own work back then, as is the case now.
(ii) The second sin relates to field researchers. Being very few in number,
untU the mid century, anthropologists took "ownership" over the places

and regions they studied, giving rise to area studies fraught with exoticism. lt is in this context that "Americanists," "Africanists," and experts

in the Pacific Islands or in Melanesia appeared on the scene. The further

combination of these geographical are as with !opies such as klnship, religion, law, and economics, besides fragmenting anthropology, made it
almost impossible to replicate experts. As a result, each anthropologist

became an institution unto him or herself, in many cases inhibiting further fieldwork in their are as of specialization.
(iii) "Salvage anthropology" was another sin. Acting like archaeologisls
gathering live debris, it was anthropology's task to rescue and store,
for the enlightenment of future generations, remnants of "primitive"
cultures and artifacts facing inevitable extinction. From this perspec-

tive, the anthropologist would go to areas of the world being conquered

by Western mores with the "mlssion" of rescuing and bringing back
the "evidence" of dlfferent (and oftentimes prcvious) forms of sociallife.

Mariza Peirano

LB8

There was a special urgency related to the task, since whole cultures and
societies were disappearing in the blink of an eye.
(iv) Last, but not least, we have the problem of funding. Here the mlsdeed
refers to the Jack of ethical principies in accepting labeled money. A
good example was the support of the Rockefeller Memorial durlng the
l930s to provide the bulk of grants for research and fellowshlps to the
London School of Economics. The goal of training experts who would
!ater domlnate Afrlcan anthropology carried a price tag: the enlightenment of administrators and officers working for imperial regimes. (Although this pragmatic use has been contested as an unfulfilled goal, the
experience remains.)

Today's Western guilt is a politicai statement derlving from recent awareness of power relatlons inherent in fieldwork. Alternative proposals have
been put forward during the past decades, including outlines to recreate
anthropology, attempts to bring anthropology home, ideas for new ethnographic experiments, concerns with writing (and with sites and audiences),
and invitations to foreigu (sometimes considered "indigenous") professionals to discuss the discipline. ln short, since the l970s, anthropologists have
been immersed in self-reflection and a quest for new awareness. 2

ln Brazil, thlngs materialize in a differenl way. Although we perceive

ourselves as part of the West, we do not assume that anthropology's past
Is essentially a sinful one. Of course, when the centers put anthropology's
llaws on display, this trend echoes in Brazil and elsewhere.' But the general
idea is that, if sins exist, they are relatively distant, faraway experiences,
committed elsewhere, in the past, and by other anthropologists. If there is
no roam here for sins, then there is no space for guilt either. ln relation to
the points raised above, for instance, in Brazil (i) otherness has been predominantly found within the limits of the country; (ii) research by a group
of ethnographers has been quite common, especially in the case of lndian
populations; (i) salvage anthropology was never an issue--rather the study
of "contact" between lndian and local populations was considered more
relevant than preserving intact cultures; (iv) funds for research have come
mainly from state agencies for advanced research. ln looking at the history
of anthropology, emphasis goes prlmarily to theoretical history, i.e., the past as
a spiral movement of production, the probing and expansion of inquiries,
and the questionings and problems deemed to be "anthropological." ln such
an endeavor, history is not judgmental, its character is not presentist, the
past is not to be condemned by today's standards. Rather, the past is seen

through the insights it generated and, as a living force, is brought back as

values and principies.

I
I
'

I
I

I
I

Anthrojwlogy with No Guill-A View from Bmzil

189

VALUES
One may read the history of anthropology ln many ways.' One way is to
look for past sins. Another is to search for values, and perhaps virtues. ln the
latter mode, values are detected mostly in the sociogenetic moment when
anthropology became socially recognized aod accepted as a discipline, i.e.,
the first half of the twentieth century. I list some of them in a candid way:

{i) One important aspect of lhe anthropological enterprise from its beginnings was to acknowledge the diversity of cultures, societies, and peoples
along with the "psychic unity of mankind." Caught in the challenge of
combining these apparently polar goals, anthropologists did fieldwork
in remote paris of lhe world, in which they had to become competent
in the natives' language-fieldwork was an encounter that was supposed
to last a long time {at least two years). lnitially conceived as research on
how 11 primitives" lived, successive fieldwork experiences ended up conveying to anthropologists that these peoples had different, but equivalent, categories or domains of social life. Comparison has thus always
been at the heart of the anthropological enterprise, whether implicit or
explicil
{ii) The confrontation between Western categories anda different but equivalent phenomenon had one simple result: lhe West became "just one
case" ln the whole human experience. A form of relativism prevailed.
From this perspective, anthropologists neither judged their subjects
nor defined what was best for them-empathy was the order of the day,
and priority for "the native's point of view" was mandatory. Whether
they encountered witchcraft, head-hunting, peculiar forms of marriage
or any other phenomena inimical to Western mores, understanding in
context was the ethnographer's task.
{iii) A byproduct of this project was that Western fields of knowledge, which
by that time were in the process of being consolidated (economics, sociology, law, psychology), carne to produce an array of subfields, such as
"legal anthropology," "economic anthropology," "social anthropology,"
"psychological anthropology," "anthropology of religion," indicating
that the discipline could respond to different areas of inquiry. (Though
both relativism and subfields have been under criticism in the past decades, their sheer existence atone point intime is inevitably part of our
present understanding of the world.)
{iv) Another point relates to the nation-state. Wbile nation-states were also
being transformed into the model of the true "world culture of lhe
times" (Dumont 1994: 14), aothropologists did not study national units;

Mariza Peimno

l90

anthropologists were studying "peoples," "cultures,'t "societiest "tribes"

situatedin nation-states, but not nation-states per se. Originated from nationstates-and anthropology being one of their offspring-anthropologists
were lnterested in different units and milieus: the Trobrianders, Tal.
lensi, Zande, Tlkopia, Maku, Bororo, Xavante, and so on.
(v) Generally these units were smaller than nation-states-but not always
so. Oftentimes anthropologists found themselves crossing national borders, either because "their1t group did so and/or because other experts'

lindings matched or combined with their own in a specilic reglon. (Of

course, Leach's Politicai Systems ofHighland Burma was the classic study in
this direction, contesting the concept of "trlbe" and forcefully denying
that lhe boundaries of society and the boundaries of culture should be
treated as coincident-an important lesson to thls day.) The anthropologists' cosmology was thus of a world made out of "areas," and not of
countries or nation-states.5

INBRAZIL
Values often produce an inspirational scenario; in Brazil anthropology's
thrill exceeds its possible past sins. Sins, if there were any, are not part of our
present day; they are allowed to rest. ln this context, yesterday's exoticism
and today's guilt-the main grounds li>r the sense of crisis in the lield-are locally "acculturated": exoticism becomes (familiar) "difference," while guUt is
stopped in its tracks by the ambience of politicai commitment towards those
under study. Against that backdrop, I will bring up a few of the aspects that
deserve highlighting:
i. Except li>r its Indian populations, Brazil has hardly attracted the attention

of metropolitan anthropologists. As a result, it has never experienced

that historical outrage of those who have been the object of anthropological curlosity by metropolitan centers, as was the case in the first half
of the century with Melanesia, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa lt Is
well known, for instance, that Lvi-Strauss was only interested in isolated
Indian populations and not ln the country as a whole. Until very recently,
Brazilian anthropologists would rarely do fieldwork outside the country's
territorial boundaries.
ln brief co/Qnialism ~ sins were all far away; no resentm.nt or guztt is in sigltJ.
ii. Anthropology in Brazil was institutionalized as a social science in the
1930s, along with sociology. At that time, the social sciences were expected

Anlhropology with No Guill-A View from Brozl

191

to devise a better future for the country as part of a movement towards

modernlzation. They should enlighten (ar even help create) a modem
politicai elite, and identify relevant !opies for investigation. But part of
this grand modernization project was also represented by a timeless
quest for theoretical excellence-which would then make the social sciences in Brazil attain the sarne levei as Europe, for instance. Ever since,

an aspiratlon for quality plus a politicai "mission" became a strong component of social scientists' self-identity. ln thls context, soclologlsts (and
not the usual cohort of archaeologists, biologlcal anthropologlsts, linguists of the center) have been anthropologlsts' long-established contenders for theoretical accomplishments and politicai relevance, particularly
since the 1950s, when sociology's theoretical accomplishments received
full recognition. For the followlng two decades, up until the 1970s, sociology was the hegemonic field ln the social sciences, with anthropology
representlng a kind of Eve's rib.'
ln hrief Anthropologists outwardly, at home sociologists are their alter ego.
iii. A sui generis picture emerges: while for sociologists a long term agenda has
always involved the study of oppressed sectors of the population, guided
by an implicit project for change and development, anthropologlsts have
focused on differences and their politicai commitment leads them to defend those studied (in particular from the state's domination). Anthropologists thus profited from the freedom allowed by the discipline's tradition
of separating "peoples" from the "nation-state" (but only partially; more

!ater). As soclologists thus work withln the parameters of a macro-sociological or historical perspective, anthropologists work with "the natives'
point of vlew"-a byproduct of lhe strong imprint left by relativlsm.'

ln hrief Acculturated as difftrence, exoticism ~ negative hend is replaced by a

(positive) scrutiny of the native's point of vitw.
iv. Fieldwork has been regularly undertaken at home (though the expression
"anthrnpology at home" is not used), following a configuration of different projects amongst which we may distingulsh, though not exclusively,
attempts at a more "radical" otherness, the study of "contact" with otherness, "nearby" otherness, and a radicalization of ~us." (More on these

ideal types, soon.) Even indigenous peoples-the prototype of a "radical

alterity"-were investigated within the boundaries of the national territory. This situatlon reveals less a problem of funding-although this aspect needs to be considered-than the cholce of an object of study which
includes, or is mixed with, a concern over differences. It can certainly be

argued that indigenous groups represented the "available exoticlsm" in

Brazil, but since othemess was not predominately radical, the demand for

M ariza Pttrarw

192

theoretical excellence took hands with the moral force that defines the
social sciences as dominated by (Weberian) "interested" knowledge.
ln brief. OtherneJs assumes relatiDt undertones and is Jirecud to social and
cultural aspects.
v. The emphasis on difference and alterity may be related to the dominant
influence of a French perspective (over a German one, for instance).
Playing down a strict interest ln peculiarities or singularities (the basis
for exoticism, for that matter), the predominant interest has been to
study different "others" within a totality represented by BrazU.' Indeed, BrazU is the ultimate ideological reference. Social responslbllity
is fundamental, but the idea that prevails is that knowledge of different
viewpoints, especially the viewpoints of (whatever) "natives," amounts
to a strong enough politicai statement. Moreover, in contrast to con-

texts where anthropology today becomes a "voice" (see Fischer 2003),

anthropology ln Brazil is a field (as sociology used to be for Durkheim)

..

and a discipline, whose social recognition has increased in recent de.

cades. (One is tempted to say that, ln Brazil, anthropology stands for

the modem values of individualism and universalism, and respect for
differences.)
ln brief. White tke sociologists' 7111Jin "mission" is represented by projects of
clumge and development, tke anthropologists' task is pri=rily based on lhe under
standing ofdifferences {even when mostly within the nationstau).'

ALTERITIES (lN THE PLURAL)

For a brief overview of what has been produced in Brazil under the label of
anthropology, I propose to identify four ideal types: "radical alterity" involves
the study of indigenous peoples, but also of peoples abroad (both are territori
ally distant); "contact with alterity" focuses on the relationship between the
indigenous with local populations; a sort of "nearby alterity" is represented

by urban studies; "minimal alterity" refers to the investigations in the social

sciences themselves. Ideal types are models in relation to which empirical
examples can be measured in order to elucldate some of their relevant
characteristics.tO

Radical alterity. ln contrast to canonical fieldwork overseas. "radical" alterity in Brazil has never been far-reaching. A Jirst case is the classic study of
indigenous populations located within the geographicallimits of the country; a second one is represented by the more recent project of going beyond

Brazil's territoriallimits. While ethnological Jieldwork is well established in

the country and has produced a considerable amount of literature on Tupi

Amhropohlgy with No Guiil-A View from Brazil

1!.13

and G Indian groups, for example, fieldwork abroad is more recent and
takes researchers to the United States, look.ing for immigrants, ar else to
Africa or Asia, in search for fellow Portuguese-speaking peoples, once colo-

nial subjects of Portugal (such as Mozambique, Cape Verde Islands, Guinea

Bissau, East Timor). ln both cases, an ideologicalHnk to Brazil is in arder;
there is no "free" otherness, indeed no exoticism in sight. 11

Contact with alterity. Contact between Indian groups and regional populations became a legitimate academic concern during the 1950s and 1960s,
particularly after the introduction of the notion of "inter-ethnic friction."
This concept resulted from a bricolage of indigenist concerns and sociological theory, revealing "a situation in which two groups are dialectically put
together by their opposing interests." 12 Inter-ethnic friction was proposed

in a context where the theories of contact, both British (Malinowski) and

American (Redfield, Linton, and Herskovitz), had proven inadequate. This
hybrid combination became the basis for many long term projects, and it
proved fundamental ln lhe consolidation of severa! graduate programs in
the countryP
Nearhy alterity. Since the 1970s, anthropologists in BrazU have carried
on research in large cities, making urban studies a case of "nearby alter-

ity." Given that lhe teaching of anthropology is part of the social sciences
curriculum, it is common for anthropology to become a counterpoint to

sociology. Under the politicai aulhoritarianism of the 1960s, anthropology

was seen by many as an alternative to challenges coming from sociology, in

a more or less silent dialogue that has persisted ever since. The attraction
to anlhropology rested both on its qualitative approach and on the promise
of answers to understand both the country's diversity and, eventually, its
ideological unity. Topics of interest range from immigrants to race relations;
religion, messianism and Afro-Brazilian cults; popular festivities; kinship
and family; party politics; violence; peasants and industrial workers; workers' unions, etc. 14

Us o.< others. Since the early 1980s, the study of the social sciences themselves has become a distinct field of inquiry. ln general, these studies propose to understand science as a forro of modernity, with topics ranging from
historical contexts to biographies of social scientists and investigations into
classical (European) sociological authors. (Apparently it is here that recent

movement at selfrellection finds shelter in Brazil.) Trends such as the "anthropology of anthropology," "ethnography of anlhropology" and "history
of anthropology" live side by side, as do studies on the teaching of anthropology. A comparative perspective with Europe is often implicit, lhus prompting the difficult question of the audience for whom they are intended, and
consequently, of the language of enunciation, given that Portuguese is not a

Mariza Peirano

world language. Of course, simple translations are not satisfactory given the
different audiences being sought. 15

CONCLUDING REMARKS: "NATIONAL ANTHROPOLOGIES"?

ln recent decades, references abound to "national anthropologies." Although
this is not a well-defined term, academic common sense has it that this expression refers to the discipline as developed in non-Western, or "peripheral,"
countries. Recent international conferences (such as lhe EASA conference
in September 2004, for instance) have added to this recognition in many
paneis.
Over two decades ago, Gerholm and Hannerz edited a special issue of
Ethnos dedicated to "The Shaplng of National Anthropologies" ( 1982). For
the organizers, the important divide was between an "international" anthropology, comprised by American, British, and French disciplines, and "an
archipelago of large and small islands" in the periphery, where "national
anthropologies" are found. The idea of "national anthropologies" seems to
have caught on since then. Recently, in discussing alternative styles for fleldwork, Gupta and Ferguson (1997) found them "in strong and long-establlshed
'national' traditions as those of Mexico, Brazil, Germany, Russia, or India"

(1997: 27); similarly Clifford (1997) suggested that traditional fieldwork

would certainly maintain its prestlge, but that the discipline might come "to
resemble more closely the 'national' anthropologies of many European and
non-western countries, with short, repeated visits the norm" ( 1997: 90).
ln this context, I dose this essay with two brief comments, one on the

"national" component of the expression, and the other on the plurality of

"anthropologies."

First, "national anthropologies" seems to denote a residual category, for

those not included in the "international" mainland. To gloss over possible
negative overtones, adjectives like "strong" and "long-established" may be
used. It is true that, historically, anthropology's development (as with other
sciences of the social) coincided with the formation of European nationstates, a process which has always allowed the ideology of nation-building
in its many forros to become if not an exclusive, then at least a powerful
parameter for the characterization of tbese sciences. The expansion of anthropology, however, also coincided with the building of empires, a fact that
poses serious problems for fonner and present hegemonic powers as to how

to deal with the troubling question of whether anthropology may survive in

a post-colonial era (and, for many, a post-nationbuding era as well). ln this
scenario, either all possible manifestations of the discipline are (or were) in

Antkropology witk No Guilt-A Vitw from Braz

195

some sense "natlonal," or we should add the label "imperial anthropologies"

to contras! to the "national" breeds. 16 Granting that no explanatory value is
attached to any of them, perhaps we should recall that anthropologists do
have a place in the world. Fortunately, though, wherever social theory is socially
produced, it is relatively autonomous from lts immediate contexts of production and therefore capable of attaining desirable leveis of communicatlon.
Second, "natlonal anthropologiei' suggests that there are as many "anthropologies" as the contexts in which they develop. What, then, isleft of the universalist promise of anthropology, in which comparison is a major stanchlon
and source? lt is a fact that anthropology manlfests itself in many versions,
varleties, and contexts. lts multiplicity, however, does not deny its universality; the awareness of its multiplicity just makes self-reflection and communication more complex. The picture of the three "others" with whom we must
converse, i.e., our immediate peers of the sarne local community (be they
fellow anthropologists, historians, literary critics, sociologists), the peoples
studied (whether overseas or just across the hall), and the colleagues from
other traditions

and other places, past and present, is not new. Rather, it is

in this context that anthropological theory-this rich and always open-ended

outcome of successive fieldwork experiences which contest both common

sense notions and previous theories-stands ln the role of a (Peircean) Third:

a full convention to allow dialogues across cultures to be in fact between
equals (we ali have the sarne monographs in our private libraries; field anecdotes are socially shared; similar ethnographical stories are used as productive metaphors). Why not value among ourselves what we grant ali natlves?
We may breathe in the idea of comp arison beneath a universal umbrella, in
which different manifestations of our own discipline are rich examples of
diversity. Anthropology is one and many.

NOTES
"'

This paper was written as a communication to the panel "'Other Anthropologies:

Regional perspectives on transnationalism and globalisation," organized by
Aleksandar Bokovi at the EASA Conference in Vienna, 2004. I want to thank
Sasha for the invitation. I am indebted to Antondia Borges for a keen reading
and for excellent suggestions.
l. See, for lnstance, Lvi-Strauss (1961) and Goody (1966).
2. See Peirano ( 1998~ Latour ( 1996: I) comments: "It is a strange fact that, exactly
when the discipline reaches the peak of its power-having overcome the period
when cultures of the world were robust and vigorous and anthropology weak
or barely existing, and the following one. in which anthropology had gathered
momentum (chairs, journals, field sites, endowments) but traditional cultures

196

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

16.

Mariza Peirano

weakened and began to disappear-guilt-ridden anthropologists began to denigrate their own achievements in postmodernist vogues."
Barth (1996: 1) comments: "American cultural anthropology today domlnates
lhe international scene, both in mass and qua1ity, and b largely trend-setting for
what we ali try to do."
On different approaches to the history of anthropology, see Peirano (2004), for
a comparison between lhe historiography of anthropology, an "anthropology of
anthropology," and "theoretica1 history".
Thus, for instance, groups could be put together in ecological/sociological areas
such as "lowland Soutb American Indians" or "Amazon region lndians"-but
nol "Brazilian Indians," or "Colombian Indians."
See Peirano (1981) for an attempt at developing an "anthropology of anthropology'' using social sciences in Brazil as a case study.
As a result, to this day sociologists see anthropologists as "soft" empiricist social
scienUs~ less socially and potically committed, less methodologica1ly rigorous, interested in peculiar differences, and always content with their discipline.
On the other hand, anthropologists censure their colleagues for their hidden
agenda about "how things ought to be."
The significance of Durkheim's sociological project for anthropology in Brazil
may be succinctly recognized in the opening paragraphs of Tlu Eltmentary Forms
of Religious Lift, where the author expHcitly denies tbat curiosity about mere
exoticism is appropriate by affirming that sociology did not lntend to study a
very archaic religion "just for the pleasure of recounting its oddities and singularities." Durkheim emphasizes that sociology's goal is first and foremost to
explain a current reality, "something dose to us and consequently capable of
affecUng our ideas and actions." It is no coincidence that many anthropological
studies in Brazil contain the term "sociology" ln their titles. (See, for instance,
Cardoso de Oliveira 1978; DaMatta 1981 ).
Ata time when the socialsciences are concerned with "methodological nationalism" (Beck 2004), anthropologists may feel exempt from these entrapments-anthropology studies groups, societies and tribes, not nation-states. Indeed, it
may study "ideologies" of nation-states. See Peirano (1992).
For a comprehensive biblLography according to the four ideal types outlined
here, see Peirano {in press).
See Viveiros de Castro (1999).
See Cardoso de Oliveira (1963).
See Pacheco de Oliveira ( 1998).
See Velho (1994); DeMatta (1981); Fry (2005).
Good translations, such as Viveiros de Castro ( !992) and Vianna ( 1999), required the help of anthropologists themselves (Catherine Howard for Viveiros de
Castro,john Charles Chasteen for Vianna).
It goes without saying, for instance, that Africa could be considered "home" to the
British, who exported the idea of totality to their colonies ln the early twentieth
century, leaving Engl~d itself critically unquestioned by its frail sociology.

Anthropolog with No Guilt-A View from Brazil

197

REFERENCES
Barth, F. 1996. The Practice of American Cultural Anthropology: A View from
the Margins. Paper presented at the panei "How Others See Us," AAA, San
Francisco.

Beck, IDrich. 2004. "Cosmopolitical Realism: On the Distinction Between Cosme>

politanism in Pbilosophy and the Social Sciences," Global Networh 4, 2: 131-56.
Cardoso de Oliveira, Roberto. 1963. "Aculturao e 'frico' intertnica." Amrica

Latina 6: 33-45.
- - . 1978. A Sociowgitl do Bmsil Indigena. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro.
Clifford,James. 1997. &utes: Thlve/ and 'IYmu/ation in tlu Latt '!Went.th Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clifford, J. & G. Marcus (eds. ). 1986. ffi'iling Culture: Tlu! Po<tics and Poltics of Ethrwg

ropky. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Pre88.

DaMatta, Rob..rto. 1981. Carnavais, Malandros e Herois. Por uma Sociologia do Dilema
Bmsi/eiro. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.
Dumont, Louis. 1978. '"La communaut anthropologique et l'idologie." L1lomme
18, 3-4: 83-110.
- - . 1994. German Irkology. From France to Germa'!)' and Back. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 2001 [ 1912[. The Ekmentary Forms of &ligious Lifi. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Fischer, Michael MJ. 2004. Emergent Forms of Lifi and the Anthropological Voice. Durham: Duke University Press.

Fry, Peter. 2005. A Persistfncia da Raa. Ensasios antropolgicos solm o Brasil e a Africa
Austral. Rio de janeiro: Civilizaao Brasileira.
Gerholm, T. and U. Hannerz .1982. "lntroduction." ln TheSMpngofNtllionalAntkrrr
pologles, Ethnos 42 (Special lssue), pp. 5-186.
Goody, J. 1966. "The prospects for social anthropology." New SOO.ty, Oct. 13, pp.
574-76.
Gupta, A. &J. Ferguson. 1997. "Discipline and practice: 'The Field' as site, method
and location in anthropology." In A. Gupta & J. Ferguson, eds., Anthropological
Locations: Boundars and Grounds of a Feld Science. Berkeley: Unlversity of Callfornia Press.
Latour B. 1996. "Not the question," Antkropology Newsetter 37, 3: 1, 5.
Lvi-Strauss, C. 1961. "La crise moderne de l'anthropologie," Lt Courrier (UNESCO)

14, 11: 12-17.

- - . 1966. "Anthropo1ogy: its achievements and its future," Current Anthropology 7,

2: 124--27.
Oliveira Filho, Joo Pacheco. 1998. "Uma etnologia de 'ndios misturados.' Situao
colonial, territorializao e fluxos culturais." Ma:na 4, 1: 47-78.

Peirano, Mariza. 1981. Tlu! Anthropowgy ofAntkropology: The Brozlian Cast. Unpubllshed
Pb.D.dissertation,Harvard University. <http:/fwww.unb.br/icsfdanfSerie110empdf
.pdP

ll-lariza Peirano

198

- - . 1992. UtTUl Antropologia no Plural. 1l'ts Exp<rihlcias Contempordneas. Brasilia: Editora da Universidade de Brasilia.
- . 1998. "When Anthropology is at Home." Annual Review uf Antkropology 27:
105-29.
- - . 2004. "'ln this context': as muitas histrlas da antropologia,"' in H. Pontes,
L. Schwan:z & F. Peixoto, eds., Antropologias, Htrias e Expmindas, Belo Ho-

rizonte: Editora da UFMG, pp. 99-123. (Engllsh version in; <http;fjwww.unb.

br.icsfdanjSer1e352empdf.pdl>)
--.ln press. Otherness in Context: A guide to Anthropology in Brazil. ln D. Poole,

ed., Companion to Latin American Antkropology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Vianna, Hermano. 1999. 1'114 Myst'TJ uf Samba. Popular Musi& & National ltknlity in
Brazil. Edited and translated byJohn Charles Chasteen. Chapei Hill: University
of North Carolina Press.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 1992. From thl Enemy's Point of View. Humanity and Dioi
nity in an Amazonian SO&Uty. Translated by Catherine Howard. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- - . 1999. "Etnologia brasileira. ln S. Miceli (org.) O Qru Ler na Cincia Social
Brasileira (1970-1995}, pp. 109-223. Volume I. So Paulo: Editora Sumar &
Anpocs.